From our private database of 32,200+ case briefs...
Williams v. Taylor
United States Supreme Court
529 U.S. 362 (2000)
In 1986, Terry Williams (defendant) was sentenced to death for robbery and murder after a jury trial in Virginia state court. At the penalty phase for Williams’s trial, Williams’s counsel emphasized only Williams’s voluntary confession to the crime, and the prosecution (plaintiff) focused on depicting Williams as a serious threat to society. In 1988, the same judge that presided over Williams’s trial reviewed Williams’s petition for state collateral relief. At an evidentiary hearing, Williams presented extensive mitigating evidence that his trial counsel had failed to present, including evidence of Williams’s severe child abuse, sixth-grade education, intellectual disability, and very positive responses to highly structured environments like prison. The trial court held that Williams had received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) during the penalty phase of trial. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s recommendation of a new sentencing hearing, finding that the trial court incorrectly applied the United States Supreme Court’s IAC caselaw. The Virginia Supreme Court reasoned that because Williams’s newly presented mitigating evidence would have barely impacted the prosecution’s evidence of future dangerousness, there was no reasonable possibility that the additional evidence would have affected the jury’s death-sentence recommendation. Williams then filed a federal habeas petition, and the federal district court granted Williams’s petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court did not follow the Antiterrorism and Effective Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) requirements for federal habeas courts’ deference to state-court decisions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens and O'Connor, JJ.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J. (Parts I and III))
Concurrence/Dissent (Stevens, J. (Parts II and V))
Concurrence/Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 585,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 585,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.